A similar uncomfortable reality exists in rightoid spaces where theres hemming and hawwing at articles like this being blindly misandrist, despite the evidence and statistics on a societal level that men overwhelmingly commit more acts of sexual violence on strangers and deserve higher even segregation (its not even close to the same ballpark), but alas, they flee the consequences and promote a culture that critiques their legitimate and statistically backed reluctance to participate (like this thread). Despite the name, cherry picking isnt that fruitful of an activity.
You realize your argument works double well for black people right? This is the textbook misandry I was talking about. Bigotry based off statistics is what we call stereotyping. Also, sexual violence against strangers is nothing in comparison to violence perpetuated by people you know.
Why? It seems pretty pointless to keep hot memory of the context of every app and tab you have open as to recall what process and tab and window ties to what thing you were doing at what time, when it's effectively all one related workflow inside your Integrated* Development Environment. Do you just keep a separate dedicated tab in your terminal for actions you would only do against a single directory?
My machine has more memory than I generally know what to do with. The mapped-into-memory footprint of Terminal.app right now is ~112MB, for 12 terminal tabs across 4 windows.
In other words, I don't care about the memory use.
I think I commented earlier that there's not that much I use the terminal for during development - mainly git. Keeping a terminal open, mainly hidden, in the bottom-left corner with the tab set to the top-level directory isn't really a burden.
I do the same - largely because I open the IDE with `idea .`/`zed .` (or whatever) from a directory with the correct nix dev shell already loaded in order to ensure the correct toolchains get used.
Typically I have 3-4 different projects open at a time and probably 30-40 terminal windows across them and other places (in Ghostty).
Honestly it had never really crossed my mind that people used the built-in terminal for anything!
Disagree. I appreciate their viewpoint tethering corporate claims to reality by illustrating Tesla is obfuscating the classification of their machines to be autonomous, when they actually aren't. Their comments in other thread chains proved to be fruitful when lacking agitators looking to dismiss critique by citing website rules, like the post adding additional detail to how Tesla muddles legal claims by cooking up cherry-picked evidence that work against the driver despite being the insurer.
IMO, if you view your question from the ethical framework of "do no harm" i.e. the hippocratic oath instead of "move fast and break things", I can clearly see reason for the apprehension. The standards aren't positioned to catch "quack medicine" but to require full understanding before asking someone else to put something in their bodies. It's somewhat of an entitled stance that youd be okay with other people possibly needlessly dying in any circumstance for something experimental, and not one I'd ever want taken as an official stance by a regulated medical body.
> I will not give poison to anyone though asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a plan. Similarly I will not give a pessary to a woman to cause abortion. But in purity and in holiness I will guard my life and my art.
Now consider that doctors in Canada and Europe are literally administering MAID as we speak. In other words, administering poison with intent to kill. Further, consider that doctors have participated in administering lethal injections, etc. I could go on all day.
But you'd invoke the Hippocratic Oath to deny people with fatal diseases access to potentially curative treatments, though admittedly experimental? That's a funny view of the oath you've got there, and either an uninformed or very funny take on medical ethics, as well.
'For some reason'? You mean for the sharing library and streaming services and all the other features that require identification to even use ...?
People like you are why I hate these plex discussions, because motivations and reasoning for functionality are quite clear and obvious but I have to play a game where I have to to discern whether comments like this are just being intentionally obtuse, or are genuinely unaware of what architecture and scale of services they provide, or are aware and are simply opine-ing about functionality you dont like ("bloated").
Jellyfin is a cool alternative to plex, keyword alternative. Its kind of a joke that all the capability it provides is even 30% matched by these other clients but what people are doing unconsciously is just admitting they dont know what they want out of a media server or HTPC. If your needs are met by providing an NFS share and using a vanilla media player to handle buffering, then I dont even see why you're in threads like this.
Also a strange technical ineptitude / fake "blindness" is accepted around here while talking about plex for some reason. Plex offered a free 5mbps reverse tunnel service that allowed you to use THEIR SERVERS to stream to others in a secure and anonymous way if you were unable to open ports. This is the functionality they put behind a paygate, the functionality that had a cost they were floating for free... youve never been restricted from sharing your media to yourself internally or externally, but I still have to pretend that comments from supposedly tech minded people who intentionally misrepresent reality are worth respecting. It really makes browsing ANY jellyfin thread unpleasant.
Can you please refrain from personal attack, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are? and also please avoid denunciatory rhetoric? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
You obviously know a lot about this, and your comment contains fine information, but unfortunately the negative elements do more harm than the fine ones do good.
> You mean for the sharing library and streaming services and all the other features that require identification to even use
Plex is for streaming my media from my server to my clients. I know a decent number of people who use (or used) Plex and I don’t think any of them would ever use it to access streaming services.
I have no problem with charging for functionality that needs their servers, or introducing streaming. But the way their authentication, “services”, and streaming features hae been shoved in our faces in the UI over time feels like a rug pull to those of us who paid for something else.
Your response is both unnecessarily aggressive and plainly wrong.
Yes, Plex _should_ work without an internet gateway. Why? Because it’s a client/server media application; it transcodes media to clients/players over the network.
Plex used to work like this. Actually, it was exclusively unauthenticated. Then early 10s they added optional auth, and eventually allowed you to reserve “server names”, and finally enforced with for running their server. But you can still use a client without auth today. Just read their docs: https://support.plex.tv/articles/200890058-authentication-fo...
> 'For some reason'? You mean for the sharing library and streaming services and all the other features that require identification to even use ...?
All I wanted to do was self host a Plex server and access it from devices on my intranet using Infuse. Why should I have to bounce to a third party server to do that?
And to be clear, the devices using Infuse didn't have to do that, but accessing the dashboard (for admin) did require an external hop. There's no reason IMO for that to be necessary.
> All I wanted to do was self host a Plex server and access it from devices on my intranet using Infuse. Why should I have to bounce to a third party server to do that?
Cool, a real discussion. Plex has the weakness of requiring a first time online auth because they didnt implement a local ldap/oauth/sso pathway. After that point, Settings > Network > "List of IP addresses and networks that are allowed without auth", use a generous netmask. Entirely local after that point if desired.
You're being a bit obtuse here yourself. The original premise of Plex was to stream your own media on your own network. I was a very early user of it, before these additional "features" that were pushed more by the Plex team than by user demand were added. They made it so you had to hack the xml config file to be able to use it in the traditional no login way, that was a pretty hostile move in my opinion and was the first eyebrow raiser for me. They also made it so you had to have a paid account to use any of the mobile clients in a clear monetization move there is no technical reason why you can't open your plex server to the internet and connect a mobile app that way, that's what jellyfin allows. I worked around this for a while by connecting to my home network on a VPN and just using chrome mobile to stream but it was less than ideal, obviously. Yes then they offered the proxying service with dynamic TLS cert generation as another paid for service, I remember it, but having never had a plex account let alone a paid one it was no interest to me. Do you work for Plex? Because your post reads like you do, especially the attitude of people not knowing what features they want and needing Plex to tell (sell) them.
I lean toward agreeing to this notion as well, I see this as the battle of practicality on use of my time and the payoff of the skills im gaining. I actually learned this a bit earlier in the heyday of stable diffusion where colossal efforts were being spent on designing techniques for prompting and inpainting img2img and understanding the effects of qualifiers and keywords. Large swathes of the community found ways to subtly manipulate the input to obtain specific characteristics in visuals, and common tricks were passed around to produce mostly consistent results.
Then LORAs were conceptualized, designed, and implemented by scientific researchers completely unrelated to the community (brought to fine tune LLMs, adapted to work with diffusion), which almost instantly displaced most of those techniques. If you ever wasted any amount of time learning those methods, your knowledge is actively tainted by outdated tidbits that need to be unlearned. Foundational changes of this nature happened frequently.
I also had a good friend who was an absolute wizard with early stablediffusion. he could make the model do things that were supposedly impossible at the time. His prompts were works of art. Now any of the commercial image models go far beyond what he could do. It's interesting to think about how there was this ephemeral art form of manipulating image models that existed for about a year.
The same could be said of prompt engineering. Gone are the days of telling the model that it is an expert software engineer with a PhD in the most relevant subtopic. These days the common wisdom is to just clearly articulate what you want it to do. Huge amounts of energy put into prompt engineering are now completely swept away by incremental model advances.
Because the tldr of the article is that the authors' specific definition of fanaticism involving investment of hundreds of hours on side tasks like painting individual units is considered based and epic and totally not a collection of junk, and that other solutions involved around not doing things like that are actually not based and not epic and are totally big collections of junk
It's sort of weird because the issue isn't around proxies representing a figure in another form, but about the perceived "loss" of the value of their efforts from someone popping out something identical without wastin- spending as much time. "I do it, so I value it" is an interesting life code to live by.
reply